[plt-dev] Re: [plt-translators] Translations for test engine

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Michael Sperber
<sperber at deinprogramm.de> wrote:
>
> Robby Findler <robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> writes:
>
>> This I'm not sure. I see that creating a distribution archive with a
>> 'check-expect' expression in just ignore the check-expects, so maybe
>> there is special-case code in there already that takes care of
>> everything.
>>
>> If you didn't add any 'require's to the string-constants library, then
>> you're probably safe. If creation of executables still works, then
>> you're probably safe.
>
> Creating an executable (on MacOS) (and running it) works fine for me.
> Anything specific I should test?  Of course, I didn't add any requires
> to the string-constants itself.  I just added some string constants.
>
> So let me see whether I have a clue what Eli and you are talking about:
>
> You're concerned that string-constantizing the test engine would
> introduce dependencies for HtDP programs that weren't previously there,
> that would create problems in some scenarios.  Is that correct?

Yes,

> If so, is there documentation or anything that describes what
> dependencies are OK and which one's aren't?

I believe Eli maintains this information. Generally the way it works
is someone adds  require somewhere that breaks things and Eli lets
them know when a script fails somewhere. I don't know if the precise
list is available on the web, but I'm sure Eli would be more than
happy to make it be so if it isn't.

> In the discussion, you seem
> to be implying knowledge of that, and therefore I don't understand what
> you're talking about.  If the dependency on string-constants is not OK,
> why isn't the require of string-constants in test-display.scm a problem?

If you can create executables with your patch and things are working
fine and if you didn't introduce any new requires, then I don't see
how your change could have created a (new) problem.

Robby